What are the chances of this being real?

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0


Link

It's all over the blogs. But here's the hyperlink to a government website, just as a courtesy to UnderReported.com readers. Despite the "raging fires" that brought down the towers, a woman is casually (as in, not engulfed in flames) standing in the WTC hole made by the airplane. As pointed out (with no hyperlink) byglobalresearch.ca, this photo comes from page 18 of the FEMA report World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2 , (the report attributes the photo to Roberto Rabanne)




Would have been cool for a couple of minutes anyway.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,026
PDX
look, maybe I 'm too drunk from extended happy hour, but what are you getting at exactly with this thread?
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
I was just fascinated by the picture, but it has fueled a lot of speculation about the conclusion that flames from the aviation fuel was the cause of the buildings coming down. How bad could the fires have been if people are wandering around after the impact and ensuing inferno? Unless the photo is a fake though.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
sorryiwasdreami said:
The reason the buildings fell, and fell so cleanly, was that there were explosives involved.
You know, I'm no conspiracy nut, but I saw a BBC documentary on the WTC and it did bring up a lot of questions. Both towers were built to withstand being hit by airplanes, and the fuzzy math (well, physics actually) doesn't add up. They said that there wasn't enough heat to cause the buildings to crumble the way they did, especially not as fast as they did. I'd actually like to think they are wrong, because I can't even imagine the alternative.

But how did all of those people jump out of a building out of an area that was supposed to be engulfed in flames? I does make you wonder if you really understand how things like that work. I just kinda hope there's some other explanation.
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
sorryiwasdreami said:
The reason the buildings fell, and fell so cleanly, was that there were explosives involved.
Says who?

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence...
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,639
2
Poor application of fireproofing materials between the tresses and the stairwells were the cause for the collapse of the 2 towers. Nothing could be done to prevent a collapse of a building, given a jumbo jet smashing into the side at 600mph.
 

jadam

macrumors 6502a
Jan 23, 2002
699
1
Blue Velvet said:
Says who?

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence...
Look how cleanly the buildings fell... almost straight down, like a preplanned building demolition.

I know for a fact that that one of the smaller buildings, I forget which one it was, had been demolished by the NYPD to prevent it from toppling over. Apparently they had explosives planted in the building just in case it would collapse so that they could have minimal damage to surrounding buildings.
 

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
jadam said:
Look how cleanly the buildings fell... almost straight down, like a preplanned building demolition.

I know for a fact that that one of the smaller buildings, I forget which one it was, had been demolished by the NYPD to prevent it from toppling over. Apparently they had explosives planted in the building just in case it would collapse so that they could have minimal damage to surrounding buildings.
That is not evidence. Show me your source and references...

And then saying you know for a fact, then going on to say 'I forget which one...'

:rolleyes:
 

Juventuz

macrumors 6502a
Dec 4, 2002
663
0
Binghamton
solvs said:
You know, I'm no conspiracy nut, but I saw a BBC documentary on the WTC and it did bring up a lot of questions. Both towers were built to withstand being hit by airplanes, and the fuzzy math (well, physics actually) doesn't add up. They said that there wasn't enough heat to cause the buildings to crumble the way they did, especially not as fast as they did. I'd actually like to think they are wrong, because I can't even imagine the alternative.
Yes, the twin towers were built to withstand a plan hitting them, smaller planes. The terrorists that hijacked the planes did so with the intention of them being large enough to do the damage they wanted, especially with all the fuel they had in them. A lot of analysts said that had the plane been loaded with less fuel there was a chance the towers could have survived. Instead they were near fuel capacity, they were flying molotov cocktails.

But how did all of those people jump out of a building out of an area that was supposed to be engulfed in flames? I does make you wonder if you really understand how things like that work. I just kinda hope there's some other explanation.
All the people that I've seen pictures of or video of that jumped were either from areas above the impact or below the impact.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
PBS did a very thorough show on this. It showed that the building was strong enough to take the impact from the planes, and the insulation was engineered to block the heat.

The design flaw was that the fireproofing material was not designed to withstand the blast from the impact. The insulation was blown off and the steel cooked. Engineers predicted how the building would react while undergoing the heat and eventual failure of the outer supports, and how the floors would successively collapse. Upon closer review of the video, you could see the tower collapsing exactly as they'd hypothesised.

I hate these imprecise conspiracy theories that have no accusation. They're so lazy in nature I'm immediately disgusted by them. You're asking to have it proven to you that the government didn't purposely explode the WTC or something?

Why?

There's vague -- if any -- references to motive and facts.

Put another way: what's your friggin' point?

(and, did you ever think that during the course of the whole ordeal, there may have been moments smoke and flames were only pouring out of one side of one of the towers?)
 

jadam

macrumors 6502a
Jan 23, 2002
699
1
Well they did demolish building 7 on purpose, but that was for safety reasons.

And yeah, the people who actually buy in to these conspiracy theories are nuts.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,506
OBJECTIVE reality
pseudobrit said:
PBS did a very thorough show on this. It showed that the building was strong enough to take the impact from the planes, and the insulation was engineered to block the heat.

The design flaw was that the fireproofing material was not designed to withstand the blast from the impact. The insulation was blown off and the steel cooked. Engineers predicted how the building would react while undergoing the heat and eventual failure of the outer supports, and how the floors would successively collapse. Upon closer review of the video, you could see the tower collapsing exactly as they'd hypothesised.
I saw the same documentary, with interviews with the guy who designed the friggin' buildings.

The only thing I'd quibble about, pseudobrit, is that I recall the program saying essentially what Juventuz said: that the building, when constructed, was designed to take the impact from a 727, but not a 747. I believe at the time of construction, the 727 was the biggest plane extant.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
Thomas Veil said:
I saw the same documentary, with interviews with the guy who designed the friggin' buildings.

The only thing I'd quibble about, pseudobrit, is that I recall the program saying essentially what Juventuz said: that the building, when constructed, was designed to take the impact from a 727, but not a 747. I believe at the time of construction, the 727 was the biggest plane extant.
Nonetheless, they each survived the impact of the 767; they were overengineered.

It was the oversight concerning the insulation not being strapped down that led to the structural failure.
 

dsharits

macrumors 68000
Jun 19, 2004
1,639
0
Plant City, FL
I believe at the time of construction, the 727 was the biggest plane extant.
Nope. The 747's were out in the 60's, and the WTC was built in 1974. I watched a documentary on the WTC on the History Channel, and they said that the towers could withstand a direct hit from a 747. Either way, they obviously didn't collapse from the impact of the planes, because they wouldn't have stayed up for another hour like they did. They collapsed from the intense heat inside the building, like pseudobrit said, because the terrorists had planned on hijacking those two exact flights for the amount of fuel they would be carrying.

Daniel
 

zelmo

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2004
5,490
1
Mac since 7.5
I remember seeing that PBS special, and they had footage of the WTC infrastructure (from an inspection) that showed how the sprayed-on insulation was insufficiently thick in some places, and completely missing in many others. I can't remember when the inspection occurred relative to the attack on 9/11, but the lack of proper insulation was what allowed the jet fuel fire to destroy the infrastructure of the buildings, causing their collapse.
It's is a tribute to the engineering that went into the towers that they collapsed straight down.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Those photos are almost certainly fabrications. Not only have we all seen the multiple videos of the airplanes hitting the towers and the ensuing fireballs, what person would ever stand in a gaping hole in a building nearly 1,000 feet above the pavement?
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
Fire Science is a wonderful thing.

At this point I can give you logical explainations for all of it.

1: The fuel in question is very heavy and has a high flashpoint (relatively little vapor in an ignitable condition without heating the fuel itself). It may very well have been a few minutes before it caught. This would mean that there was a window of time when the fuel was spreading out and moving towards flashing (enough vapors to ignite/enough oxygen to ignite the vapors/a source of energy to provide ignition). In that window of time a couple of photos could have been shot of officeworkers walking around in shock.


2:In this scenario it would have some time to spread out into all soft surfaces, seep into broken walls, fill ducts and void spaces with combustible gasses and spread out until it came into contact with a source of ignition. It's very likely that there were small spot-fires burning almost immediately. When the primary accelerant in a structural fire is a heavy fuel oil the most likely mode of ignition is Flashover. Flashover is when all sources of combustible gas (materials already burning or smoldering, accelerants, combustible materials undergoing sympathetic pyrolysis, etc.) ignite simultaniously because the mix of gasses, heat and fuel are optimal.

This occurs in all mostly closed or semi-closed structural fire environments if no mitigation of gas accumulation can be applied in time. The Flashover can be seen in the video of tower 2: The tower is impacted, smokes more and more heavily with no visible flames for several minutes, suddenly flames gout several dozen feet up into the plume of smoke (vented combustible gasses). This is Flashover as observed from the outside. Anyone or anything combustible inside the space occupied by the gas cloud at the base of that plume would have ignited as close to simultaniously as makes no difference.


3: The second attribute of this kind of fuel (heavier than lamp oil) is that once you get it to ignite it burns VERY VERY hot. Once the Fuel oil ignited it's sustained burning temperature is higher than the tempering temperature of the steel in the building. With the structure's innate bulkheads compromised and filled with a high temperature accelerant, catastrophic failure was only a matter of time after the initial Flash.

4: Very large buildings have some engineering attributes that contribute to the "clean" failure. They're designed to take impacts, handle heavy (non accelerated) fires, have resistance to seismic and wind-induced resonance and built in resistance to fire-travel. The engineering is, however compartmentalized. The regs did not require buildings to be built assuming combined factors because these events are so rare as to be considered inconsequential. The spec did, however require that these large, commercial buildings be built such that, when demolished they would fail in a predictably neat pile.

5:Since the floors are "hung" on steel and concrete uprights the fail point under extreme heat would be the steel fastners, bolts and rivets holding the floors to the uprights. When one entire floor's worth of space ignited with a high temperature accelerant it was logical to assume that the vast majority of fastners in the floor(s) immediately above the fire would fail at roughly the same time with an explosive series of pops as steel up to several inches thick underwent thermal failure and split along it's stress lines. Since the floors were not built with the weight of upper floors as part of their structural calculations the weight of them falling ten feet to the next deck would accomplish the same failure as the fire had to those that failed first and so on.

Did I miss anything?
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
My understanding it similar to others here, that the collapse was precipitated by the effect of the blast on the fireproofing material that was sprayed onto the structural elements.

The WTC was somewhat of an unusual building in that it relied on a solid core connected to a structural outer wall by floor beams. IIRC, this method allowed for more office space than other methods available at the time (most skyscrapers use what's called a 'curtain wall' wherein a glass-and-steel wall is suspended off structural members located in from the outer wall). Anyway, the beams that tied the outer strucutral wall to the core also prevented those outer columns from buckling, a situation where a column deflects and eventually fails due not to it's inability to support the load, but rather it's inability to keep from bowing out and eventually snapping. Think drinking straw with a brick on it. When the planes went through the outer walls they dumped their fuel all over the now-exposed steel members. When floor beams connecting the core to the wall began to fail, the columns on the outer wall all buckle and snap leading one floor to 'pancake' onto the one below, which cannot support the force of the floor dropping down which leads to another collapse and another and another... all straight down.
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
zimv20 said:
yeah -- where you been?
Loooooooooooooooooong story. The most recent stuff is:

Been without a machine for a month. My Frankenbeige went DOA on me on dec. 23rd. I now have a new Mac Mini. I was also locked out at work for a while. The day of the keynote I just couldn't take it and found a way around the lockout. Gotta say: Windows security is a joke.

Been taking Fire Science classes which gives me tidbits like the above and a whole lot more. :D

But I'm doing well. Between the new Kiddo, Fire classes at the JC, work and consulting I haven't had time to stop and think much... Thanx for asking.

PS: I also needed some time off from the politics Forums. I refused to be in 'em around the election/inauguration.